READING
In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths (80 percent) of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option.
The shortened workweek would increase company profits because employees would feel more rested and alert, and as a result, they would make fewer costly errors in their work. Hiring more staff to ensure that the same amount of work would be accomplished would not result in additional payroll costs because four-day employees would only be paid 80 percent of the normal rate. In the end, companies would have fewer overworked and error-prone employees for the same money, which would increase company profits.
For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rates. If many full-time employees started working fewer hours, some of their workload would have to be shifted to others. Thus, for every four employees who went on an 80 percent week, a new employee could be hired at the 80 percent rate.
Finally, the option of a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees. Employees who could afford a lower salary in exchange for more free time could improve the quality of their lives by spending the extra time with their families, pursuing private interests, or enjoying leisure activities.
LECTURE NOTES
Offering employees the option of a four-day workweek won't affect the company profits, economic conditions or the lives of employees in the ways the reading suggests.First, offering a four-day workweek will probably force companies to spend more, possibly a lot more. Adding new workers means putting much more money into providing training and medical benefits. Remember the costs of things like health benefits can be the same whether an employee works four days or five. And having more employees also requires more office space and more computers. These additional costs would quickly cut into company profits.Second, with respect to overall employment, it doesn't follow that once some employees choose a four-day work week, many more jobs will become available. Hiring new workers is costly, as I argued a moment ago. And companies have other options. They might just choose to ask their employees to work overtime to make up the difference. Worse, companies might raise expectations. They might start to expect that their four-dayemployees can do the same amount of work they used to do in five days. If this happens, then no additional jobs will be created and current jobs will become more unpleasant.Finally, while a four-day workweek offers employees more free time to invest in their personal lives, it also presents some risks that could end up reducing their quality of life. Working a shorter week can decrease employees' job stability and harm their chances for advancing their careers. Four-day employees are likely to be the first to lose their jobs during an economic downturn. They may also be passed over for promotions because companies might prefer to have five-day employees in management positions to ensure continuous coverage and consistent supervision for the entire workweek.
Question:
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture are both about four-day work week for employees. The author of the reading believes that there are three benefits related to shortened work week. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He thinks that four-day workweek is not as beneficial as the author assumes.
First of all, the author claims that short work week will increase company profits by having fewer error prone employees. It is noted that more staff are involved in more efficient work and cause less costly errors thereby, increasing the profits of company. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that companies will be forced to spend a lot more. Furthermore, he points out that if company has to provide more office space and computers for the new workers, company profits will be declined worse than they currently are.
Secondly, the writer states that shortened work week will reduce the rate of unemployment. He argues that companies can hire one new employee for every four staff working at eighty percent a week. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. He suggests that if employees work four days, they will have more options. He elaborates on this by mentioning that with decreased number of days, employers will expect the workers to finish the same amount of work in four days making the work more unpleasant.
Finally, the author mentions that employees will get more free time. He is of the opinion that employees are provided with more quality life, so they will spend their time with family and pursuing their interests. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that shortened workweek decrease the job stability and future growth in career. He puts forth the idea that because they work four days rather than, they will be the ones to get fired when there is economic downturn.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 175, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...enefits related to shortened work week. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t as beneficial as the author assumes. First of all, the author claims that sho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...clined worse than they currently are. Secondly, the writer states that shorten...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... days making the work more unpleasant. Finally, the author mentions that employ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, as to, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1517.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8935483871 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34385640584 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538709677419 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 3.25607064018 399% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6846257593 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.2777777778 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2222222222 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281990608674 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0961822155535 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0731442298446 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189281184693 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0643190668713 0.0443174109184 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.